A *very* good read.

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

JB


Noteworthy from the article:

1. "It is still true, however, that voters are actually casting their votes for the Electors for the presidential and vice presidential candidates of their choice rather than for the candidates themselves.

2. "... the Congress enacted in 1887 legislation that delegated to each State the final authority to determine the legality of its choice of Electors and required a concurent majoirty of both houses of Congress to reject any electoral vote.

3. "A third way of electing a minority president (*read -- one without the majority [50% or more] popular vote), is if a third party or candidate, however small, drew enough votes from the top two that no one received over 50% of the national popular total. Far from being unusual, this sort of thing has, in fact, happened 15 times including (in this century) Wilson in both 1912 and 1916, Truman in 1948, Kennedy in 1960, Nixon in 1968, and Clinton in both 1992 and 1996. The only remarkable thing about those outcomes is that few people noticed and even fewer cared.

4. ... the distribution of Electoral votes in the College tends to over-represent people in rural States. ... the combined voting age popultion (3,119,000) of the ... seven least populous jurisdictions .... carried the same voting strength in the Electoral College (21) as the 9,614,000 persons of voting age in the State of Florida. Each Floridian's potential vote, then, carried about one third the weight of a potential vote in the other [jurisdictions].

5. By thus failing to accurately reflect the national popular will, the argument goes, the Electoral College reinforces a two-party system, discourages third-party or independent candidates and thereby tends to restrict choices available to the electorate.

Good outline of the more serious flaws. (Thanks for sharing that.)

But what's the answer? I'd really like to hear some opinions on this one, if anyone has the time or inclination, because the only solution proffered so far (that I'm aware of) is eliminating it altogether. Hmm... I'm not sure that's wise, but I don't have a better suggestion myself...just glad it's finally under debate and I'd like to hear all that I can.

If left in place, there is really no way to be sure that it can ever be truly non-partisan, for example, OR factually representative of (the majority of) the People. I just don't see how it ever could be. (That seems to be true of anything involving human beings.)

OTOH, if it's eliminated, that would muck up the works of a system that's already so overburdened it barely functions at all, imo.

Side note: I find it fascinating that a "clear winner" was announced the morning of the 3rd, when on the night of the 2nd, folks were still waiting in 6-hour long lines at 9:00 pm in my county to even cast a vote. (Yes, the polls closed at 7:00, but those folks were in line well before 7:00. TIP: Vote early, people. Good grief. )

In one precinct? 400+ people... WAITING.... There were at least 3 other precincts in the same predicament when the electoral votes were, uh, "called" for NC. And in Mecklenburg (read: lots and lotsa people), votes were cast, but not counted until two days later. (Same for my county.) Let's not even get into the impossible to recount electronic fiascoes. Ummmmmm.... *every vote counts*? Every vote that wasn't botched or left for counting later or "provisional" or.....

Gee, wonder if mine was counted?